• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

Cephus said:
I'm not arguing that British stupidity played a good part in the American victory, but seriously, if you were a British soldier at that time, would you just stand there and get gunned down because that's "how it's supposed to be done"? I know I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think I'd be smarter than that, too. Lots of British soldiers did do just that, didn't they?

Soldiers are taught to follow orders.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'd like to think I'd be smarter than that, too. Lots of British soldiers did do just that, didn't they?

Soldiers are taught to follow orders.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between following orders and being an idiot. If you saw the first three ranks of your fellow soldiers walking across a field go down in a hail of gunfire, would you keep on walking? I sure the hell wouldn't. Then again, I'd never do well in the military, I can think for myself.
 
Henrin said:
Like usual you miss the point. You can't win a war with nothing in mind except winning unless you have massive power and resources. You have to put up a strategy that can win the war as quickly as possible and this involves that the goal of your strategy is making you opponent think they can't win and give up. War is a mental exercise, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

You think terrorism is a crime?
 
ric27 said:
You think terrorism is a crime?
Click to expand...

It is because we defined it that way. All crimes are a matter of definition. We've just made the definition for terrorism far, far, far too broad and it's become an absurdly misused word today.
 
Cephus said:
There's a difference between following orders and being an idiot. If you saw the first three ranks of your fellow soldiers walking across a field go down in a hail of gunfire, would you keep on walking? I sure the hell wouldn't. Then again, I'd never do well in the military, I can think for myself.
Click to expand...

I probably wouldn't either. I've never been in the military, so who knows?

I think I'd be inclined to go prone when the rank ahead of me got shot down.
 
Thunder said:
no, the United States Military believes we should show respect to the dead, regardless of who they were.
Click to expand...

And how does one respect the dead? You're going to have to show that in writing...nothing is punishable in the military unless it's in writing.
 
mac said:
And how does one respect the dead? You're going to have to show that in writing...nothing is punishable in the military unless it's in writing.
Click to expand...


"um...excuse me Lieutenant, but is it ok if I take a picture of me giving the finger to the headless body of this Taliban guy? the military rules don't say exactly what we can & can't do, and I just wanted to make sure"

"um..excuse me Lieutenant, but is it ok if I take a picture of me making believe I'm raping the headless body of this Al Qaeda guy? the rules aren't specific and I just wanted to be sure"

......wow, you really think our fighting men are a bunch of bumbling, backwards, backwoods, bumble****s.
 
Cephus said:
Nah, it involves the strong beating up on the weak. You know, like the U.S. does. We never attack anyone who actually might be able to hurt us.
Click to expand...

You can win a war and be weaker militarily than your opponent and it has happened many times throughout history.
 
Henrin said:
You can win a war and be weaker militarily than your opponent and it has happened many times throughout history.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. We just don't do that. Take 9/11 for instance. We went in and attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither had a chance in hell of defending themselves against us and our weapons designed for the Cold War. We entirely ignored Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the places that actually trained, financed and supplied the 9/11 bombers. Why? Because they have nukes and can actually stand up to us.
 
Cephus said:
Sure you can. We just don't do that. Take 9/11 for instance. We went in and attacked Afghanistan and Iraq. Neither had a chance in hell of defending themselves against us and our weapons designed for the Cold War.....
Click to expand...

sorry, but we did NOT "attack" Afghanistan.

we went in there to remove a hateful, violent, extremist, totalitarian, and horrible regime.

this is why I fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and support us keeping troops there an infinitum..until the job is done and the people have a chance at a real future with an ounce of freedom.

Iraq, well that was just Junior finishing the job that his Daddy very smartly chose not to do.
 
Thunder said:
"um...excuse me Lieutenant, but is it ok if I take a picture of me giving the finger to the headless body of this Taliban guy? the military rules don't say exactly what we can & can't do, and I just wanted to make sure"

"um..excuse me Lieutenant, but is it ok if I take a picture of me making believe I'm raping the headless body of this Al Qaeda guy? the rules aren't specific and I just wanted to be sure"

......wow, you really think our fighting men are a bunch of bumbling, backwards, backwoods, bumble****s.
Click to expand...

First, Lieutenants rarely get asked anything of importance, second, we're talking about how soldiers should be punished. Unless it's defined in rule, regulation or law....it's not prosecute-able. So, define it.
 
mac said:
First, Lieutenants rarely get asked anything of importance, second, we're talking about how soldiers should be punished. Unless it's defined in rule, regulation or law....it's not prosecute-able. So, define it.
Click to expand...

if its not prosecutable, then wtf are we all talking about????????????????????????????
 
Mostly we are talking about the hysterical responses of ninnies and weak sisters in the United States to the notion that maybe in wartime sometimes we are not nice to the enemy. It seems that many have failed to grasp that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" does not really gel with "also, kill them".

However, I'm pretty sure this is prosecutable. Good Ole Article 134.

Thunder said:
sorry, but we did NOT "attack" Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

We certainly did. Just because you think our actions were justified does not mean that we didn't invade Afghanistan.
 
Thunder said:
if its not prosecutable, then wtf are we all talking about????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

What they did that is a chargeable offense is violation of General Order 1 in that that took pictures of a human casualty. That's it, that is all. The rest of it is simply "ninny hysteria" as CP aptly called it.
 
cpwill said:
...We certainly did. Just because you think our actions were justified does not mean that we didn't invade Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

pretty funny.

I say "we didn't attack Afghanistan".

and you respond with "we invaded Afghanistan".

the USA invaded France during WW2. Were we attacking France....or attacking the NAZIS in France?
 
Thunder said:
pretty funny.

I say "we didn't attack Afghanistan".

and you respond with "we invaded Afghanistan".

the USA invaded France during WW2. Were we attacking France....or attacking the NAZIS in France?
Click to expand...

We invaded Afghanistan and we made war on Afghanistan. The Taliban was Afghanistan's government....not an occupying force from another country.
 
mac said:
We invaded Afghanistan and we made war on Afghanistan. The Taliban was Afghanistan's government....not an occupying force from another country.
Click to expand...

did the USA recognize the Taliban as the legitimate and rightful rulers of Afghanistan?

the Taliban were no more the rightful rulers of Afghanistan than the Vichy govt. was the rightful rulers of France.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
pretty funny.

I say "we didn't attack Afghanistan".

and you respond with "we invaded Afghanistan".

the USA invaded France during WW2. Were we attacking France....or attacking the NAZIS in France?
Click to expand...

We attacked France. Germany had troops forward deployed there, certainly. This was a particularly bad example for you to use, given that France actually spent more time in WWII fighting on the side of the Axis than they did on the side of the Allies.
 
Thunder said:
did the USA recognize the Taliban as the legitimate and rightful rulers of Afghanistan?

the Taliban were no more the rightful rulers of Afghanistan than the Vichy govt. was the rightful rulers of France.
Click to expand...

:shrug: the US definitely recognized that the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan. We aren't, after all, quite that blind. We didn't maintain an embassy there or extend them diplomatic niceties - nor should we have.

As for who our preferred outside government was... :shrug: well, in France we put DeGaulle into power, and in Afghanistan we went with Hamid Karzai. Both of whom later proved to be extremely problematic allies, though a definite improvement over the people we had brought them in to replace.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
did the USA recognize the Taliban as the legitimate and rightful rulers of Afghanistan?

the Taliban were no more the rightful rulers of Afghanistan than the Vichy govt. was the rightful rulers of France.
Click to expand...

If that's what you think than you are....well, you know already.
 
mac said:
If that's what you think than you are....well, you know already.
Click to expand...

barely any nations recognized the Taliban as the legit. rulers of Afghanistan.

the USA certainly didn't and neither did the UN.

that's why we didn't attack Afghanistan, only the illegitimate Taiban govt.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: the US definitely recognized that the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan. We aren't, after all, quite that blind.....
Click to expand...

just as we recognized that the Vichy govt. ruled southern France. Indeed, we are not blind.

That didn't stop us from invading & liberating France from Nazi & Vichy rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom